Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Mattson TechnologyMattson Technology
VS
NXP SemiconductorsNXP Semiconductors
Mattson Technology

Mattson Technology

47131 Bayside Pkwy, None, Fremont, CA, US, 94538

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.mattson.com
702/1000Moderate

Mattson Technology designs, manufactures, markets and supports semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication of integrated circuits. We are a key supplier of dry strip, rapid thermal anneal, plasma etch, and millisecond anneal equipment to the global...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:626
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

High Tech Campus 60, Eindhoven, 5656 AG, NL

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.nxp.com
757/1000Fair

We anticipate tomorrow’s needs—navigating a changing world by bringing together technology's brightest minds to build game-changing solutions that propel us forward. NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NASDAQ: NXPI) is the trusted partner for innovative solutions in the automotive...

NAICS:3344
NAICS Definition:Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Employees:22,465
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mattson Technology

Mattson Technology

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mattson Technology in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Semiconductor Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)

NXP Semiconductors has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Mattson Technology (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mattson Technology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - NXP Semiconductors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

NXP Semiconductors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Mattson Technology

Mattson Technology

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAT253080525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MAT314072725
NXP Semiconductors

NXP Semiconductors

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NPMGITNXPMIC1779193496
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
NXPTHASTM1775572928
🔒 Incident : Breach
ODI1771093701

FAQ

Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Mattson Technology company and NXP Semiconductors company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Mattson Technology and NXP Semiconductors, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Mattson Technology and NXP Semiconductors, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Mattson Technology or NXP Semiconductors ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Mattson Technology or NXP Semiconductors ?
Between Mattson Technology and NXP Semiconductors, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Mattson Technology and NXP Semiconductors, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-74250
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-74247
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-74245
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74244
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-74243
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-14
UPDATED
Date2026-08-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9